It seems there is a general historical debate regarding the nature of
the Nazi regime, the
intentionalist v functionalist debate. Intentionalists argue that the
Holocaust was a result of a grand master plan that Hitler had from the
beginning, whereas functionalists argue that the Holocaust was an
improvised, last minute war scheme devised by the lower ranks of the
regime and that Hitler himself was a weak dictator. Ian Kershaw, a
very prominent Hitler scholar (regarded among the best today) seems to
argue for a mix of both but more or less aligining with the latter
broadly. He thinks that while Hitler and Nazi ideology had these
general racialist and social darwinist themes, their implementation
was not organized or regular but rather a result of competing
bureaucracies and structures working underneath Hitler. He thinks that
Hitler only made broad policy outlines and those who worked
subserviently for him carried them out in a wide variety of haphazard
ways, thus going against the idea that Nazi Germany was a disciplined,
organized "totalitarian" state. The holocaust, therefore, was not a written-down
"master plan" but rather a culmination of the competing policies of
various Nazi agencies guided by Hitler's ideas.

Where do you think this leaves the account given by Foucault in his
1976 course? What historical examples could better serve his
state-race arguments as opposed to what he mentioned regarding the
Nazis? Does his description of the Nazis fit too much along an
intentionalist line or could it accomodate the ideas of the
functionalists. I admit its not something I've ever given much thought
about, considering how much we take the "Nazis as organized racialist
totalitarians" narrative for granted.
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the world"